Was De Valera right to have Ireland neutral in WW2?

silverharp · 16-10-2007 12:53PM

PHB wrote: »

However, if you look at the fact he signed the condolence book for Hitler, at which point, the concentration camps were actually known to people, I think you can begin to understand his actions.

if he didn't know about the camps he would of known of the various mass killings in Italy etc. however I've read that it was more his personality type that led him to do things in a very robotic manner, rather then it being any view he held about hitler.

brianthebard · 16-10-2007 01:05PM

seamus wrote: »

I think it was more of a political spread bet than any ideal of "we're not getting involved". Aside from our inability to defend ourselves at the time, maintaining neutrality meant one of three outcomes:

1. Germany win, they respect Ireland's neutrality.
2. Germany win, they come in and take control, but recognising our obedience civilian deaths are minimal and they may even leave us with some sort of Irish governing body.
3. The allies win. Ireland stays the way it is.

Taking sides would have been the high-risk option. If Germany had beaten Britain, we'd have been annihilated.

I think there's a fourth outcome there Seamus, where Britain declares martial rule over the whole island. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ireland would have been invaded if they had been in the war, in World war terms Ireland would be a key strategic base for anyone who could get their hands on it. I don't have much time for Dev but that was definitely something he did right.

moe_sizlak · 16-10-2007 01:06PM

its easy with hindsight to condemm de velera for choosing to have ireland remain neutral , however back then , it would be natura for him to see the war as just another adventure for imperial britain , why would we want to support those who had destroyed us for so long and having only freed ourselves from such an oppressor

not everyone sees britians occupation here as having been a good thing , oh wait no one sees it , well apart from eoghan harris and kevin myers who have said so in print

Fratton Fred · 16-10-2007 04:09PM

brianthebard wrote: »

I think there's a fourth outcome there Seamus, where Britain declares martial rule over the whole island. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ireland would have been invaded if they had been in the war, in World war terms Ireland would be a key strategic base for anyone who could get their hands on it. I don't have much time for Dev but that was definitely something he did right.

I think that's a good point. Ireland could well have been Britain's weak underbelly so the invasion on ireland, if the situation called for it would have been good planning. If Dev had opted to join hitler, then what other choice would Britain have had?

Mr.Micro · 16-10-2007 09:41PM

moe_sizlak wrote: »

its easy with hindsight to condemm de velera for choosing to have ireland remain neutral , however back then , it would be natura for him to see the war as just another adventure for imperial britain , why would we want to support those who had destroyed us for so long and having only freed ourselves from such an oppressor

The thing is the whole of Europe was being overrun and Britain was fighting for her life .It is not as if Hitler would have left Ireland alone if he had invaded England .I suspect there was a good deal of anti British reasoning in De Valera s decision ( not unreasonable in view of the history between the 2 countries) but I do not think he would have seen it as another adventure in view of the fact that Hitler was the aggressor .

Manic Moran · 16-10-2007 10:31PM

Gobán Saor wrote: »

So what. The Brits had plans to invade us too. For our own good, don't you know:rolleyes:

Different reasons, though.

The British plan would be put into effect if it seemed likely that Ireland would let Germany have the use of ports or air facilities. The German plan would have been put into effect regardless of Irish intentions on the matter: Either as a supporting operation to Sea Lion (British would have to keep troops and naval/anti-shipping assets in Ireland to protect Northern Ireland) or as a subsequent conquest.

NTM

Rosita · 16-10-2007 10:47PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I think he was wrong to allow Ireland to stay neutral in WW2 .He could have perhaps showed solidarity with the free world against the evil of Hitler.I accept that Ireland as a new nation was struggling to grow and adapt ,and perhaps that was a reason, but in view of his offer of condolences to German Embassy on the death of Hitler I fear perhaps his motivation for neutrality was otherwise.

Of course he was right.

Redmond urged Irish people to fight for King and country in WW1 in the mistaken belief that it would mean something in the end and it didn't. What on earth would the slaughter of the Irish population in WW2 have achieved?

As for his offer of condolences to the German Embassy on the death of Hitler (which was also done by President Douglas Hyde the head of state but because he is not a political figure people are not so exercised by it or many even aware of it - funny that) as a neutral country it was diplomatically the only thing to do.

Those who retrospectively want to have it both ways will indeed have it both ways, but if you are neutral you have to be neutral when it might not suit you either.

Churchill's subsequent admission that it wouldn't have cost the Brits a thought to invade here again had they deemed it necessary copperfastens neutrality as the right decision. Why on earth would you hitch your wagon to that lot? The British had done nothing to earn the right to have the Irish nation prostrate itself for them.

One of the problems here is that like all consideration of history, most people cannot go back beyond their knowledge of the history books to consider how people might have thought when making these decisions. In 1940/41 the "evil of Hitler" would have seemed a lot more abstract to Irish people than the "evil of Britain" as exhibited in Ireland as recently as two decades earlier.

Latchy · 16-10-2007 11:26PM

Like most of the world ,Dev was unaware of the concentration camps and He was hedging his bets on either germany or the british invading the republic .He would i am sure have re-considered his letter of condolance at Hitlers death had he known , then again he might just have wanted to get up the nose's of the british ?

Mr.Micro · 16-10-2007 11:43PM

Rosita wrote: »

Of course he was right

One of the problems here is that like all consideration of history, most people cannot go back beyond their knowledge of the history books to consider how people might have thought when making these decisions. In 1940/41 the "evil of Hitler" would have seemed a lot more abstract to Irish people than the "evil of Britain" as exhibited in Ireland as recently as two decades earlier.

That is perhaps so but one could argue people knew a little bit more of what was going on as radio existed and newspapers .The Irish Government would have had even more knowledge through diplomatic channels and bearing in mind Hitlers track record through the thirties and his persecution of the jews and others during this time I am sure was well known .In the end if for nothing else perhaps Ireland should have gone with the allies to save our fellow man .

rlogue · 17-10-2007 12:47AM

Rosita wrote: »

As for his offer of condolences to the German Embassy on the death of Hitler (which was also done by President Douglas Hyde the head of state but because he is not a political figure people are not so exercised by it or many even aware of it - funny that) as a neutral country it was diplomatically the only thing to do.

Those who retrospectively want to have it both ways will indeed have it both ways, but if you are neutral you have to be neutral when it might not suit you either.

Let's get one thing straight shall we? We were the only nation that offered its condolences to the Germans after the death of Hitler. Where were the other neutrals? Clearly making sure they wouldn't get a heap of abuse on their heads following on from the revealing of the true murderous nature of the German state.

We made a huge mistake in staying neutral after the Americans entered the war and we paid a big economic and social price for De Valera's near-Aspergery actions over the following 50 years.

We had the constitional position of Northern Ireland copperfastened to the UK as a direct result of neutrality, we were barred from the UN for 10 years after the war, we got hardly any Marshall Aid and our economy remained joined at the hip with the UK until we joined the EEC.

The war could have been the making of us, instead we stuck our heads in the sand and paid a big price for Dev's principles.

walrusgumble · 17-10-2007 12:59AM

silverharp wrote: »

if he didn't know about the camps he would of known of the various mass killings in Italy etc. however I've read that it was more his personality type that led him to do things in a very robotic manner, rather then it being any view he held about hitler.

i heard that signing the condolence was simply out of a mark of respect for the german ambassador who was in ireland at that time, appartantly he was a person whom dev had alot of time for. ireland was no of few countries who allowed ambassadors from axis countries to remain in position. britain and the usa (david gray) had no business whatsoever bulling a neutral state over the policy of keeping these abassadors. a neutal country takes no sides (ok ireland leaned to the allies)

hindsight is a fine thing:but ask yourself, or put yourself in the shoes of an ordinary dubliner cork or galway man/woman, at that time, or indeed even now with today's problems,how many of you, in light that damn all countries coming to the aid of ireland (a small country like belgium) during the war of independence and the bitterness of the people after civil war (never mind fighting together in europe people would barely look at each other) would any of you be willing to send your child over to europe to do there bit? funny how call out about the horrible things that happened to the jewish community when b-specials had taken lumps out of catholics in places like belfast and derry in the 1930's, who cried out foul play there?

who ever really thinks a 32 county offer would really be delivered, really needs their heads checked. do you really under estimate the unionists that much? churchill, whose father spent much of his public life protecting and supporting ulster or the quarter of a million who signed the ulster solemn league and covenant pledged to take up arms even against the crown if status quo was changed, these people did not go away you know.

as for the treaty ports, britain was not too pushed once america based them selves in the north. why could he recognise that ireland won them back in 1937 fairly, ireland had its own government to decide its own issues and that the treaty was all but dismantled after the enactment of statute of westminster. if he was so concerned about security, then why did he not offer money/weapons secretly to the irish government to fund a coastal survaillence?. surely such defence was as much a priority to ireland as to britain.

and the notion of economic prosperity after the war: do you justify entering war because of the economic benefits after the war or because it was a just cause? and there is all of us slaging off bush during his quest for oil in iraq.

again hindsight is a wonderful thing, how can one tell if ireland or the rest of europe would have quickly reform economically after the war, at that time? how can a country particularily as small as ours develop economically when it had in place protectionist tarrifs and taxes (many other countries did too)making it too small to surive on home based products and business to survive without foreign investment.note reasons why the european coal and steal community (later eec and eu came into being, how many euroepan countries really and truely were economically buyont straight away after the war, considering MANY HAD TO REBUILD ALL THE INFRASTRUCURE IT ONCE HAD?)

only the usa truely gained from the war financially on a long term basis (ok britain gave northern ireland the welfare state out of the funds) would war particapation have leapt frog our economy a number decades? maybe, northern ireland got some motorways funded and a few other things but its not like it grew strong economic links with them in years to come (of course the troubles stopped it from happening)

rlogue · 17-10-2007 01:05AM

Not a question of hindsight, but fact. The Ireland Act of 1949 in the UK parliament was pushed through by the Attlee government at the behest of Basil Brooke. In that act the UK recognised the Republic of Ireland but as I said earlier, copperfastened NI to the UK by specifically stating that NI would not ever leave the UK without a majority vote in Stormont.

The Republic of Ireland came about because of the abuse that John Costello got from the other Commonwealth nations at the Commonwealth conference in Canada in 1948, as Ireland's neutrality was despised by the other commonwealth nations. Costello literally pulled us out in a fit of pique.

We got hardly any Marshall Aid as we had no reconstruction to do in the aftermath of the war either. And as we weren't in NATO the Yanks were very much not inclined to invest much money in Ireland in the forties and fifties.

rlogue · 17-10-2007 01:11AM

funny how call out about the horrible things that happened to the jewish community when b-specials had taken lumps out of catholics in places like belfast and derry in the 1930's, who cried out foul play there?

I hardly think six million jewish people killed by the Nazis compares with the poor treatment of Catholics by the Stormont regime.

Shutuplaura · 17-10-2007 01:13AM

moe_sizlak wrote: »

its easy with hindsight to condemm de velera for choosing to have ireland remain neutral , however back then , it would be natura for him to see the war as just another adventure for imperial britain , why would we want to support those who had destroyed us for so long and having only freed ourselves from such an oppressor

not everyone sees britians occupation here as having been a good thing , oh wait no one sees it , well apart from eoghan harris and kevin myers who have said so in print

Nail on the head there mate. Nazi Germany was a terrible place and in hindsight its easy to see that. At the time when she was behaving like other european powers had done for hundreds of years and the death camps etc were not widely know about I think it entirely reasonable for Dev to look at the problem and say stuff it, you caused it you fix it. Like it or not the Versailles terms and the subsequant failure to use force to keep Germany to those terms was a huge factor in causing the global crises of the 1930's to escalate to war.

Regards the persecution of the jews in the 1930's. While terrible it wasn't the final solution on the 1940's and could be more comparable to apartheid. That said a great many countries stronger than Ireland have to take the blame for that also. The US government refused entry to a shipload of jewish refugees who were later let stay in Holland where after the invasion they fell into the Nazi's hands again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis

I'm sure Ireland wasn't too welcoming of refugees and that in my opinion is a greater stain on the countries flag than involvement in the war.

PHB wrote: »

Aside from the huge cost to Ireland for not being involved in the effort, specifically not getting included in the Marshall plan which would have kickstarted our economy and meant 30 years less of suffering,

Do you even know anything about the Marshalll Plan? Ireland did recieve aid under the Marshal Plan, like other neutral European countries, including ones who's neutrality aided the axis rather than the allied side such as Portugal. It took me about 20 seconds to find the details below. Sorry to rain on your Dev bashing parade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Marshall_Plan.png

PHB wrote: »

It seems, as a nation, everybody was obsessed with England.

Probably they were. Given that Ireland had been at war with Britain less than a quater century before I think its entirely understandable. The destruction of parts of the country was materially as bad as what occured in Europe during the First World war (obviously though the loss of life wasn't as great) Cork and Balgriggan had been torched, O' Connell street half destroyed and Co-Ops up and down the countries burned down. Why wouldn't people have been obsessed with Britain. The Allies were obsessed with avoid war with Germany for the same reasons.

PHB wrote: »

That said, is the price of that show really worth the tacit acceptance of the concentration camps as an acceptable thing to happen in a government?

When did Dev show tacit acceptance of the concentration camps? Was it in the same way the western allies showed tacit acceptance of the Invasion of Ethopia and China, the rape of Nanking? Or The Winter war? Firstly, the concentration camps were not well known about until late in the war, even by the allies. Secondly, Dev had shown himself to be a consistent opponent of aggression in the League of Nations - an organ set up by the Great Powers as a final arbiter of international affairs to avoid war. It wasn't his fault but the leagues own creators that it lacked teeth. And thirdly, even if he had known, what could the Irish government have done in war than it couldn't do in peace? It could have accepted more refugees as I say but it couldn't have contributed much more to the allied cause than it did under Dev's policy of neutrality which was heavily in favour of the allies as it was. How could it otherwise? Convoys to Britain were routed closer to Iceland and the around the North coast rather than by the south coast and were protected by long range air cover all the way. Destroyers guarded the convoys and they accompanied the ships from the US to Britain so I really think its false to say that Ireland could have contributed a lot more but didn't and cost hundreds of lives.

And fundamentally it comes down to the first duty of the government which is to look after the welfare of its citizens. It did so by remaining out of the war and arguably it saved our cities from aerial bombardment. People can say that it was risky becasue Hitler might have invaded Britain and have carried on to Ireland afterwards and therefore Britain deserved our help. This is all besides the point becasue any strategy carries an elemnt of risk. That Dev's strategy worked is to his and the government's credit.

Shutuplaura · 17-10-2007 01:21AM

rlogue wrote: »

Not a question of hindsight, but fact. The Ireland Act of 1949 in the UK parliament was pushed through by the Attlee government at the behest of Basil Brooke. In that act the UK recognised the Republic of Ireland but as I said earlier, copperfastened NI to the UK by specifically stating that NI would not ever leave the UK without a majority vote in Stormont.

The Republic of Ireland came about because of the abuse that John Costello got from the other Commonwealth nations at the Commonwealth conference in Canada in 1948, as Ireland's neutrality was despised by the other commonwealth nations. Costello literally pulled us out in a fit of pique.

We got hardly any Marshall Aid as we had no reconstruction to do in the aftermath of the war either. And as we weren't in NATO the Yanks were very much not inclined to invest much money in Ireland in the forties and fifties.

What are you on about? Not s question of hindsight? That was 1949! The war started ten years before. So it is very much a question of hindsight. Anyway, As I explained, churchill's offer was vague and very much a spur of the moment thing. No one, least of all Dev knew what he meant, how serious he was or how he would get the northern government to go along with it. Also, regards Marshall Aid, We got enough to cover post war reconstruction, which wasn't ase great as other countries. That we didn't pursue wise economic policies afterwards is a seperate issue. The fact you are trying to link them shows your true agenda.

walrusgumble · 17-10-2007 01:51AM

rlogue wrote: »

Let's get one thing straight shall we? We were the only nation that offered its condolences to the Germans after the death of Hitler. Where were the other neutrals? Clearly making sure they wouldn't get a heap of abuse on their heads following on from the revealing of the true murderous nature of the German state.

We made a huge mistake in staying neutral after the Americans entered the war and we paid a big economic and social price for De Valera's near-Aspergery actions over the following 50 years.

We had the constitional position of Northern Ireland copperfastened to the UK as a direct result of neutrality, we were barred from the UN for 10 years after the war, we got hardly any Marshall Aid and our economy remained joined at the hip with the UK until we joined the EEC.

The war could have been the making of us, instead we stuck our heads in the sand and paid a big price for Dev's principles.

good point about the north, but if you are assessing dev's actions now, what makes you think that the constitutional position in northern ireland has been set in stone for ever, in light of recent times?

as for the un which was formed in 1945, ireland became a republic in 1949 it joined un in 1955, hardly much of a wait is it? the ussr blocked ireland's previous application, sure jesus they have used its veto over about 79 times in the first 10 years of the un, there foreign minister was known as mr no. more importantly, ireland' s application for the un had NOTHING to do with its neutrality stance. russia vetoed ireland, italy and finland as a ccounter-response to the USA’s objection to the admission of Outer Mongolia, which it believed to be little more than a Russian colony.

ireland had a choice to join in the 1960's, but de gaulle vetoed britain, not ireland. but as 90% of our exports lied with britain sean lemass decided that it would wait until britain got approval, there was nothing stopping them then. i doubt five or six years would have made much of a difference seeing the eu only really came to dominance or importance in the late 1970-1980's when the treaties atempted sweaping instituional reforms of significance.

i appreciate your approach to justification of ireland joining the war (sole economic reasons on ireland's part), but if that is the case, i hope you are not one of them bush - blair bashers.

how are you so sure that the irish government would have actually spent the money wisely? the bit of marshall plan we did get was wasted on draining bogs of no particular use. there were many dinosaurs in fianna fail at that time who were too conservative, how do we know that they would have spent the money wisely? noel brown later came up with a very good idea in the child - mother scheme, whether or not it would have been feasible to fund it, it was struck down not only by external influence (church) but also cabinet colleagues. look at the amount of money that has been paid into the health system by health ministers in the last decade. is our health system the envey of the world?

walrusgumble · 17-10-2007 02:04AM

rlogue wrote: »

I hardly think six million jewish people killed by the Nazis compares with the poor treatment of Catholics by the Stormont regime.

charity begins at home.:rolleyes:

under no circumstnces should what happened in the north should be compared to the jews, poor mary mac learned that mistake when the unionist cried foul. of course the plight of the jews is more noticable as there was more of them, but you make it sound like, i am sure you are not doing it intentional, what happened to catholics should be swept under the carpet, like all things have done in the north execpt in recently with these truth commissions and bloody sunday enquiry.

you seem to neglect to acknowledge in your reply that the poor treatment of the poor catholic as you described kick off events like the civil rights marches which in turn got nasty and kicked off the troubles, a whole 30 years worth.

brianthebard · 17-10-2007 11:56AM

latchyco wrote: »

Like most of the world ,Dev was unaware of the concentration camps and He was hedging his bets on either germany or the british invading the republic .He would i am sure have re-considered his letter of condolance at Hitlers death had he known , then again he might just have wanted to get up the nose's of the british ?

The problem is people had already known about the concentration camps for at least a month before the war ended, so there's no reason why dev wouldn't have known about them.

Fratton Fred · 17-10-2007 12:33PM

I was thinking about this driving home the other night.

What if Ireland had decided Britain was still the enemy and had thrown it's lot in with Germany. This would probably have forced Britain to invade and seen total war on the Island of Ireland. Obviously this would not have been a good thing. or would it?

Would it have forced the issue of Irish sovereignty. After the war the question of what to do with Irland would have been discussed in the same way it was with Japan, Poland, Germany and Austria. Ireland would, I suspect remained under British control, but no doubt with an increased American presence. Ireland would also have seen the sort of investment and aid that Japan and Germany received. However most of this aid came from the US, so would the US have insisted that grants be given, on the basis of a final solution, a united independant Ireland?

In the long term, would this have been so bad?

I undecided about this but thought it may be worth discussing.

gosplan · 17-10-2007 12:35PM

PHB wrote: »

If the Germans had won, they knew that we were effectively pro-British

I don't really see how you can say this and then say that being neutral was a black spot on our history.

I think in all most people are looking at this argument from the modern day.

'How come Dev didn't declare war onthe Nazis - hadn't he seen Schlinders list?'

The background at the time was:

Previous Imperial war(WW1) was totally self serving from each side.
Nazi's had the vatican on their side.
England didn't have most of the Irish population on their side and had a pretty poor record of winning supporters over here.

Dev couldn't just declare a war and then make it so. He needed the country behind him and I don't think he would have had it.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and he was a total Nazi, that's why he signed the book of condelences...I even hear that he had Jonathan Rhys Meyers shout 'Heil Hitler' just before he shot Michael Collins.

A last point:

How many soliders could Ireland have contributed? How effective would the tiny and technologically backward army of an unwilling nation be if he had pledged it?

How many Irish worked in British industries producing goods and equipment for the war?

Lennoxschips · 17-10-2007 12:45PM

How many Irish worked in British industries producing goods and equipment for the war?

My grandfather did, anyway. I don't think he was pro-British or anything, but they were offering good money at the time.

purple'n'gold · 17-10-2007 01:20PM

"The Government also led a large drive, under the guise of Noel Browne, to eliminate tuberculosis in Ireland. Sanatoria, X-ray machines and the latest medicine were employed as part of the plan which was massively successful. The Government also set up several semi-state bodies such as the ICC, the Industrial Development Authority and Forfás, in an effort to stimulate the economy and promote investment as well as Irish exports. An effort was also made to re-forrest parts of ireland, through the new agency Coillte. Money for this last scheme came from the Marshall Aid donated by the USA to rebuild post-war Europe, although Ireland was only entitled to this money as a loan, which had to be re-paid, as it wasn't a staunch ally during the War."

Taken from here
http://www.politics.ie/wiki/index.php?title=Fifth_Government_of_Ireland

Shows exactly what the Americans thought of us. And they were right!

Blackjack · 17-10-2007 01:45PM

I would recommend to anyone who has an interest in this subject to read this book.
I've just started reading it myself before anyone asks, but would appear to concur with Dev's approach, given the Social, Political and Economic state Ireland was in at the time.

My own opionion is that while de Valera had a flawed vision for Ireland that Neutrality was the only approach that Ireland could have taken throughout the War.

Ireland was neither equipped nor ready for such a war, had no Navy or Airforce, little in the way of Anti-Aircraft defences and an inadequately equipped Army to deal with any invasion or combat. I believe there were a few tanks, although their battle readiness was undoubtedly poor, and nothing in the way of anti-tank weaponry.

It also had little in the way or resources to offer to the effort, other than people who would probably have been cannon fodder given the lack of equipment. Having a largely Agricultural economy at the time which was almost entirely manual, we would have had little else to offer other than food. You can't throw beef and Turnips at German Tanks and hope they will surrender.

Further, to join the war would have likely caused another Civil war in the country, given the depth of anti-British feeling that existed. Let's remember that Ireland had only achieved independence less than 20 years prior to the war, after quite a bloody and viscious conflict, during which the British had done little to endear themselves to the Irish Population. There was also an equally murderous civil war directly after that.

To bring a country into the second world war that would have quite likely been fighting internally would not have been a clever move for anyone, and would likely have prompted an invasion from either side.

Dev had declared his intentions to remain Neutral long before the war, it is said to have been as far back as 1936, particularly after Italy's invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethopia) and the muted response from France and England after that event. I understand that he had made clear a policy of Neutrality in 1938, so Neutrality during the conflict should not have been a surprise to anyone.

As regards the Criticism of the Neutral policy of Ireland, the Dutch, Belgians, Danes and Swedish also adopted a policy of Neutrality, however some of these were less fortunate to say the least. Sweden would have been much better equipped to deal with War but for various reasons (and was subject to the same Criticism as Ireland from Churchill, despite a markedly higher involvement with the Germans) retained a policy of Neutrality.

As regards the book of condolences, this was highlighted by Dev as being a courtesy to the German Nation and ambassador, and was also the British representative (they had no Ambassador in Ireland prior to 1949 AFAIK) commented that this was "unwise but mathematically consistent".

While hindsight would now perhaps indicate to some that Neutrality was a "Cowardly" policy, I would entirely disagree. There was very little in the way of choice at the time and an involvement beyond what Ireland had taken in the war would have been disastrous for the Country. Given the assistance that Ireland had given to the Allies (weather reports provided by the Irish Government had in actual fact decided the timings for the D-Day landings, and a policy of repatriating Allied Airmen while Interning German Airmen) I find Churchill's Criticisms rather unwarranted. Mind you, Churchill had no love for Ireland, given it was he who ordered the Black and Tans into the country in the first place.

P_1 · 17-10-2007 02:38PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I was thinking about this driving home the other night.

What if Ireland had decided Britain was still the enemy and had thrown it's lot in with Germany. This would probably have forced Britain to invade and seen total war on the Island of Ireland. Obviously this would not have been a good thing. or would it?

Would it have forced the issue of Irish sovereignty. After the war the question of what to do with Irland would have been discussed in the same way it was with Japan, Poland, Germany and Austria. Ireland would, I suspect remained under British control, but no doubt with an increased American presence. Ireland would also have seen the sort of investment and aid that Japan and Germany received. However most of this aid came from the US, so would the US have insisted that grants be given, on the basis of a final solution, a united independant Ireland?

In the long term, would this have been so bad?

I undecided about this but thought it may be worth discussing.

Thats interesting. Something akin to the Finnish Continuation War as in we DOW Britain but don't join the axis?

In my opinion it may have worked during the Battle of Britain but given the state of Ireland's military it would have been a very long shot.

Rosita · 17-10-2007 02:52PM

rlogue wrote: »

We made a huge mistake in staying neutral after the Americans entered the war and we paid a big economic and social price for De Valera's near-Aspergery actions over the following 50 years.

We had the constitional position of Northern Ireland copperfastened to the UK as a direct result of neutrality, we were barred from the UN for 10 years after the war, we got hardly any Marshall Aid and our economy remained joined at the hip with the UK until we joined the EEC.

The war could have been the making of us, instead we stuck our heads in the sand and paid a big price for Dev's principles.

This is classic hindsight history.

Unfortunately De Valera did not have such knowledge at the time of making the decision. Obviously he should have sat down in September 1939 and known all about (1) the Marshall plan, (2) that the United Nations would be founded six years later and that Ireland would suffer some drastic problem by not being part of it, and (3) that we wouldn't join the yet-to-be-founded EEC until 1973. Unfortunately he couldn't work that out. Bad form really.

I love the idea that the war could have been the making of us. Jaysus weren't the Dutch and Poles lucky to have been involved?

I have no idea what neutral countries offered condolences to anyone - it is likely that some did if they had a German embassy. On the other hand they could as Dev himself put it "have had a diplomatic illness". In any event it is irrelevant and just something brought by journalists every now and again and lapped up by the general public as if it matters.

As for setting us back for 50 years with the Americans, France and Germany were not exactly on good terms during WW2 and they formed the EEC together little over a decade later and yet you think that the Americans were holding WW2 against us 50 years later? What a joke. Political reality moves on far quicker than you seem to believe.

rlogue · 17-10-2007 03:20PM

At the risk of repeating myself, no other countries paid condolences to the Germans other than Ireland.

Rosita · 17-10-2007 03:32PM

rlogue wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself, no other countries paid condolences to the Germans other than Ireland.

This is an irrelevant point whether it is true or not.

Although the provincial mentality in Ireland these days always has to look elsewhere for approval, an action is not right or wrong on the basis of whether other countries did it or not and it should not be implied otherwise.

Spain was a neutral country which actively discussed military strategy with the Nazis and considered joining their war effort. In the same way this should not be used either to draw inferences about Ireland's neutralty.

Blackjack · 17-10-2007 08:24PM

Rosita wrote: »

This is an irrelevant point whether it is true or not.

Although the provincial mentality in Ireland these days always has to look elsewhere for approval, an action is not right or wrong on the basis of whether other countries did it or not and it should not be implied otherwise.

Spain was a neutral country which actively discussed military strategy with the Nazis and considered joining their war effort. In the same way this should not be used either to draw inferences about Ireland's neutralty.

QFT

moe_sizlak · 17-10-2007 08:50PM

ive no problem with dev,s descision to keep us out of the war and after watching last nights programme , ive even more sympathy for dev , i do however think he was completely wrong to have signed the book of condolences at the german embassy , even tim pat coogan said it was an awfull thing to do

TerrorFirmer · 17-10-2007 09:04PM

gosplan wrote: »

How many soliders could Ireland have contributed? How effective would the tiny and technologically backward army of an unwilling nation be if he had pledged it?

I think that's an interesting question. On it's own, the army would have been next to useless - without modern armour and air power a purely infantry based army was just that. It would have needed either side to equip it first, and then, it could have served some use - even the Finns with their tiny army, poor equipment and with a brigade of tanks from the Germans (not actually tanks, tank destroyers) forced the Soviets to abandon their idea of forcing unconditional surrender.

A popular ideal is that guerrilla warfare akin to the war of independance would have resurfaced. Certainly it would have if the British invaded. But I really don't think it could have had the Germans occupied the country - their brutality in retaliation would have been far, far worse then anything the British committed while in Ireland in the 19/20th century.

Was De Valera right to have Ireland neutral in WW2?

Comments